Los Olvidados (aka The Young and the Damned)
Luis Bunuel creates an unforgettable masterpiece of unflinching reality that provides the necessary justification for those who believe that there is no difference between between cinema and reality, at least cinema as true art. It follows a couple of street kids in Mexico City as they merely exist in the world they know. The movie makes no effort to excuse them as they beat up a blind man, steal money, or as in one scene, brutally muder a peer, yet neither does it allow itself to pass judgement. It remains incredibly objective, not explaining why the situations are the way they are, and offerring no solution as to how they could be improved. It stands as a document of truth, observing the way things are in the streets of Mexico City. Bunuel is often remembered for the slitting of the eyeball in Un Chien Andalou or his virulent satirical attacks on organized religion as in L'Age D'Or or the sensual, surrealistic farce of his later years, but what is often overlooked is just how humane a filmmaker he always was even at his boldest and most controversial. However with this film as with his greatest film Nazarin, and other films he made while in exile in Mexico, he mostly strips away style (though there is still one memorable surrealistic dream sequence in the film), to the bare essence of humanity through his images. It's a powerful film which leaves me thinking of the truth of Jim Hoberman's observations, "Los Olvidados is strong enough to make a hardened Communist cry or drive a (true) Christian to despair." A true gift from any artist.
3 Comments:
Even though it’s bleak as hell, I consider this the best Bunuel film I’ve seen so far because his craft is finally in service of something worthwhile. His attacks on the bourgeoisie are usually funny, and his attacks on religion are often ill advised, but here, his attack on a totally evil society where children are commonly beaten to death is seeped in Dickensian outrage. The famous mother-meat dream sequence hasn’t aged very well, in my opinion, but that’s okay—this film is closer in spirit to the Italian neorealist movement, which I love (although it is decidedly lacking in sentimentality). I don’t know exactly what Hoberman meant by his statement, but a ‘true’ Christian would never despair, especially not in response to this film. If anything, it should fan the flames of righteous indignation and inspire a greater love for humanity. I had what can only be described as a spiritual experience after watching this—judging by the tone of your review, Clint, I don’t think I’m alone.
The more I think about it, Clint, the less faith I have in Bunuel, an avowed atheist, as a reporter of spiritual truth. I’m certainly not questioning the film’s formal brilliance—I have no problem calling it a masterpiece—but Bunuel’s worldview is so radically unbalanced, so completely blind to several aspects of the human experience (namely, man’s capacity to love and show kindness, something even Bergman understood), he fails to illuminate the soul of his characters, reducing them to thieving, murderous dogs. It is anti-humanist, anti-reform. I don’t think his film is so much a cry for help (as the film’s tacked-on prologue seems to suggest) as it is a ploy for nihilism. The review I read claimed that Bunuel had no point of reference for his story, which makes me question his fidelity to the facts.
It’s easy to see why Jim Hoberman loves this film as deeply as some Christians love Dickens and Dostoyevsky—it sustains and affirms his preexisting beliefs. So how about you, Clint? Did it drive you to despair? Did it stir profound feelings that there is no hope, that there is no God? Part of me wants to laud Bunuel for his accomplishment, but it’s difficult to take his side when his films are fueled by the false notion that tragedy is somehow the noblest, truest display of showmanship available to the artist. As a Christian, I think the film is still useful because it inspires the converse reaction Bunuel was hoping to instigate in his audience. In Los Olvidados, there are no answers—there aren’t even questions. His film is a masterpiece, but it’s also no good.
It's not anti-humanist at all. It has the courage to present these kids as complex human beings in a bad situation -- they are neither complete monsters, nor are their actions excusable. They are people who need love (not to mention food), and in the case of the protagonist, are willing to go to extreme lengths to get it (as all people probably would).
As for the capacity of human kindness, are you forgetting the scene in which the main boy is sent to the reform house where the overseer takes and interest in him, and manages to break through the surface with kind words and a display of trust? It's a wonderful scene.
It stirs in me feelings that there is hope, but they just don't know it yet. It does inspire in me a love for humanity in all of its complexities.
Post a Comment
<< Home